"The almighty Flintoff" and "the below test standard Lee"

[marc71178]

Clarke in India

4 8 1 400 151 91 73 57.14 1 2 0

So why was he a poor selection according to you!?

Simple.

Richard doesn't think he's good, so that automatically means he's not good.

 

[marc71178]

Wow, such wonderful balls he got Gilchrist with.

Had it been Vaas bowled them you'd have been telling us how good the bowler was.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's pretty obvious - if the ball moves sideways it's almost always going to be a wicket-taker, and if it bounces excessively or inexcessively on a decent line.

This, I think, sums up exactly why you are one of the poorest and most maligned judges of cricket on this forum. It takes such an absolutely mind-bogglingly narrow-minded and undeveloped understanding of cricket to believe that only balls which move sideways (and, based on previous conversations, only those which move A LONG WAY) can be legitimate wicket takers.

 

[Richard]

From an Aussie perspective, if such good fortunes help win important series like it did in India, I am sure they wont complain!

I knew you would try to discount Clarke to fortune/luck at some stage as you do when you cannot come up with some logic in any argument.

Clarke a bad selection for the series in India because there were better candidates even though Clarke played a key role? Its one of the worst points you have come up with ever.

The only reason a selection can be the right one is if it's made for the right reasons.
Saying it was a good selection because it paid-off is like saying throwing yourself off a cliff and happening to fall onto a trampoline on a passing boat was the right decision.

 

[Richard]

23 wickets @ 24.95 in 5 games.

Is it flattering because you dislike him, or is it flattering because the South Africans are all gods and they gifted him the wickets?

All the figures since 2003\04 are flattering, because of the fact that most spells of wickets were gained without bowling any wicket-taking deliveries.
The fact that I don't rate him is based on that, not the other way around.
Something you appear to be too stupid to realise.

 

[Richard]

Had it been Vaas bowled them you'd have been telling us how good the bowler was.

No, I'd not.
And you clearly know so little about me as to be utterly unqualified to make such statements.















"Oh, the irony"

 

[Richard]

This, I think, sums up exactly why you are one of the poorest and most maligned judges of cricket on this forum. It takes such an absolutely mind-bogglingly narrow-minded and undeveloped understanding of cricket to believe that only balls which move sideways (and, based on previous conversations, only those which move A LONG WAY) can be legitimate wicket takers.

Nope, not those which move a long way at all.
A bat's width is not a long way.
So... how else do you regularly see good batsmen getting out other than poor strokes?

 

[Pratters]

The only reason a selection can be the right one is if it's made for the right reasons.

The intention of selection is to chose a person to perform the task at hand. If some one does that like Clarke did in India, you applaud the selectors that they had perspective to select him despite some other candidates being there. You dont criticise them still just because you feel some one else should have been selected!

 

[Richard]

You criticise someone for doing something wrong even if doing something wrong ended-up profiting.
Like I say - you don't fail to call someone an idiot for jumping off a cliff just because they happened not to die.

 

[Swervy]

You criticise someone for doing something wrong even if doing something wrong ended-up profiting.
Like I say - you don't fail to call someone an idiot for jumping off a cliff just because they happened not to die.

surely the job of the selector is to spot potential..a selector can see if someone has it in them to be a test player, whether or not they produce the goods in first class cricket or not. If that player then plays well in test cricket, that justifies the faith the selectors had in that player..surely

 

[Richard]

Because of course Clarke's played so wonderfully so far, hasn't he?...

 

[Pratters]

Because of course Clarke's played so wonderfully so far, hasn't he?...

When Clarke will play well you will say its a wrong selection.

When Clarke will not play well you will say its a wrong selection.

So again I reiterate, your perception can never be wrong, whatever is the scenario.

 

[Pratters]

Simple.

Richard doesn't think he's good, so that automatically means he's not good.

Spot on there.

 

[Swervy]

Because of course Clarke's played so wonderfully so far, hasn't he?...

well he has done ok actually..his innings the other day (despite being dropped on 21) was a real gem, that enabled Australia to really get into a winning position from a position of uncertainty...you could see he was ****ed off to have given a chance and after that he really buckled down and produced the goods..a great knock

In India in his first test, under a lot of pressure , he came in with Australia not in the best position and proceeded to win the man of the match award..two matches later, he scored 90 odd and 70 odd

Vs NZ, he came in with Australia 120-4 and scored a quick fire 140..

ok after that he had a bit of a rough trot, but if he continues to play for the next 10 years (which i am sure he will), those 6 or 7 tests will be seen as a mere blip.

he is obviously a very talented player..the selectors saw that in him,and decided to put him in the team..whats the problem

 

[deeps]

Flintoff is a great player as far as I'm concerned. He's England's best and most consistent bowler

well then ur in big trouble

 

[tooextracool]

Warne has not been playing in the one dayers since 2003. So how would you explain the one day success in 2003 world cup and post 2003

i was referring to their test side which without mcgrath and warne brings them down from great to decent.

 

[Swervy]

well then ur in big trouble

this from the guy who thinks Afridi is superman!!!!!

 

[Pratters]

i was referring to their test side which without mcgrath and warne brings them down from great to decent.

So the selectors are crap while selecting the test squad because of that reason but they arent that crap while selecting the one day squad!?

 

[tooextracool]

So the selectors are crap while selecting the test squad because of that reason but they arent that crap while selecting the one day squad!?

nope they are crap in both cases, just that their test side rely a lot more on mcgrath and warne than their ODI side.

 

[Pratters]

nope they are crap in both cases, just that their test side rely a lot more on mcgrath and warne than their ODI side.

The logic you gave for the selectors being crap was no matter what they do, McGrath and Warne will see Australia through.

That explanation does not hold good in one dayers. So I would like to know how the side performs in one dayers apparently despite shocking selectors.